Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Action topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to agendize closed sessions on two federal lawsuits; city attorney to schedule briefing
Summary
Council members asked that the city agendize a closed session to consider whether Palo Alto should join litigation against the federal administration in cases including American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump and City & County of San Francisco v. Trump; council asked the city attorney to arrange a legal briefing and consider options
Several council members requested the City Council agendize a closed session to consider whether the city should participate in federal litigation challenging recent federal executive actions.
Council member Vinkar (spokesperson in the meeting) laid out two cases she wanted the city to consider: American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (a case related to a workforce-reduction action) and City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (a case that previously challenged a freeze on Department of Justice grant funding). Council members said they were aware that other jurisdictions had filed lawsuits and that those suits had prompted temporary restraining orders in some federal courts. Council member Vinkar asked staff to place a closed-session item for legal advice and to explore whether Palo Alto should participate by joining or filing amicus briefs.
City Manager and city attorney response
City staff told council that, because the request is time-sensitive, the matter will need to be added to a future agenda and that the city attorney and staff would coordinate on scheduling and the legal review needed to consider participation.
Why it matters
A decision to join or assist in federal litigation would be a policy decision with political and legal implications; closed-session review is the appropriate forum for the council to receive legal advice and counsel recommendations. Council members asked for a formal closed-session agenda item and supporting legal materials to evaluate the options.
Public record and next steps
Council did not take public action in open session; council members indicated support for agendizing the matter as a closed session item and the city attorney and city manager said they would work on calendar availability and legal materials for council deliberation.
Ending
No vote or final decision occurred in open session on May 12; the council requested staff arrange the closed session and necessary legal briefs so council members can consider whether to participate in or support the named cases.
